[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: F7 Plan (draft)



On Tuesday 19 December 2006 13:06, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > 5. A Fedora Server spin of F7
> > Accountable: Jesse Keating (rel-eng), YOUR NAME HERE!
> >
> > Another one of our release targets. Needs defined by Test 2.
>
> Is there any specific plans for the desktop and server? 

None yet.  Welcome to the planning phase.

> The only new 
> feature is I see listed is fast user switching.  What other differences
> are there besides the set of packages? 

That's most likely going to be the only set.  Until such time as we have 
metadata outside the package for what services get started, etc..  the only 
difference we'll easily be able to make is what packages get included.

> Are all these variants single 
> CD's each?

Very difficult to do with the Desktop CDs, given that openoffice.org + 
translations is larger than a CD itself.  For server, sure it would be nice 
to fit on a single CD.

> > 6. A Fedora KDE spin of F7
> > Accountable: Rex Dieter
> >
> > Like Fedora Desktop, but with KDE.
>
> Have we thought about having a DVD/CD set of *all* packages? 

Somebody could do that.  Given everything else that's on my plate, I'd rather 
not.

> That would 
> be useful for many places whether bandwidth or network access is
> constrained.  

Burn a DVD set of the tree itself, ship it somewhere to "seed" the mirror, go 
from there.

> The GNOME spin is called "Fedora Desktop" while the KDE 
> one is called "Fedora KDE". Might consider more consistent branding.

These are just generic made up names tossed out, not final marketing terms.  
Don't read too much into them.

> Speaking about KDE, are we looking at KDE 4?

Schedule doesn't mesh well.

> > 10. Boot and shutdown speedup
> > Accountable: me!, David Zeuthen, YOUR NAME HERE
> >
> > We do enough Stupid Stuff that we can make easy improvements to startup
> > and shutdown time without large systemic changes. Includes: tagging of
> > scripts that don't need shut down, profiling of boot, potential changes
> > to how we organize disk blocks, and more.
>
> Can we look at splitting up packages more during the mass review
> process? There were many discussions in fedora-devel list and bugzilla
> reports filed a while back.

I'd rather go for least change possible to get past the review.  Much easier 
to consume rather than massive amounts of change.  We have a ton on our plate 
as it is, lets not add more.

[snip]

>Are we planning to have a
> new bugzilla instance at fedoraproject.org?

I hope not, not until we can have bugzillas talk to eachother for cloning 
bugs, moving bugs around, etc...

> > 21. Real-time kernel
> > Accountable: Ingo Molnar, Dave Jones
> >
> > Because fake-time kernels are so last year
>
> Is the motivation behind this the integration of Planet CCRMA? Are we
> going to start allowing alternative kernel like this into Fedora?

Alternative kernels == doom.  Its going to be bad enough if we have to do a 
standalone xen kernel that moves at a different pace than the other kernels.  
kmods blow up.  Userland changes become harder to make.  Security flaws...

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora

Attachment: pgpl1eHLTJ6kd.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]